Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Murder of Julia Wallace (1931) - Full DPP case files

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Where has this lung infection come from? I can’t recall seeing it mentioned anywhere?
    Julia's words, she said she had bronchitis on the day of her death.

    Comment


    • .for Parry to have no involvement you have to ignore a fake alibi
      And for Wallace to have been innocent we have to ignore his lie about being ‘a complete stranger’ in the area. We have to forget that he ‘forgot’ to tell the police about visiting Crewe’s house in his interviews and statements. We have to forget that Wallace said that the front door was bolted and yet the evidence of Mrs Johnston and PC William’s shows that it almost certainly wasn’t. We have to ignore William’s deeply suspicious hassling of the tram conductors and an Inspector. We have to ignore that William ignored person after person who all told him that MGE (we can also ignore the excuse that he was desperate for a commission as 24 hours earlier he was completely indifferent to the idea.) We also have to ignore the coincidence of the backdoor defeating William for the first and only time in 16 years. We have to ignore the fact that only William could have benefitted from turning the lights out.

      There are so many things that we have to come up with excuses for to exonerate William.
      Regards

      Herlock




      “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
      “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
      “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
      “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
      “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

      Comment


      • And you also can't expect anyone to NOT expect to be drenched
        Are you really suggesting that it’s impossible to protect yourself from blood spatter?
        Regards

        Herlock




        “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
        “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
        “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
        “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
        “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

        Comment


        • , I feel like a person such as Marsden was the one who came and was admitted by Julia, and that he's the killer.
          The problem of course is that there’s not a smidgeon of evidence to connect Marsden to the crime. He was just about to marry into a good family. We have no reason for suspecting that he was in any way short of cash. He had no history of criminality whatsoever. It was only Wallace that talked of ‘financial irregularities.’ Gannon found zero evidence of this though. So there’s simply nothing to connect him to the case except that he’d had a client called Qualtrough. Marsden is a name and nothing more.

          We have Wallace giving a list of people that Julia would have let in. For everyone it’s just a case of name, who they were and where they lived. Not only does he write a long paragraph on Parry including his financial irregularities but in his much shorter paragraph on Marsden he talks of rumours of financial irregularities and pointedly describes him as ‘very plausible.’

          Im fairly convinced that William deliberately set up the crime to look like it was committed by someone that knew the house and the financial arrangements. He then dangled two likely lads under the police’s noses and hoped. Lets remember, we only have William’s word that Julia would only have let in certain people. It’s also strange that Wallace didn’t mention suspecting Parry during the investigation (maybe he felt that the police might think that he was deliberately using him to deflect attention from himself) and yet, after his acquittal, he becomes convinced of his guilt. This is strange. He’d received no new information. The police had investigated and exonerated him. It’s not as if Wallace had hired a detective to look into Parry. So why was he so convinced?

          I think Wallace was p*ss*d off that his efforts to drop Parry in it hadn’t worked. Plus, as some people still felt him guilty, he needed a fall guy.

          Parry and Marsden were names on a piece of paper put there by William to benefit William.

          imo of course.
          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 02-07-2020, 11:11 PM.
          Regards

          Herlock




          “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
          “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
          “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
          “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
          “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

          Comment


          • William placing them as suspects when they have no involvement means he certainly has a death wish. It's sheer dumb luck Parry fudged his call night alibi in that case.

            If you want to get away with murder you don't tell police that there's about 3 people who could have committed the crime.

            I believe him about the financial irregularities based on the fact that he said the same of Parry and it turned out he was being honest...

            The R. J. Qualtrough is a strong connection. He might have picked the name himself to frame Marsden but again it's death wish territory. Apart from that there isn't any actual connection to Marsden. And Parry may well have heard the name through Marsden.

            I'd be more inclined to believe he knew he was screwed and threw his accomplices to the wolves as a hail Mary to get away with it. He would know they have no alibi and he's F-d anyway, they're gonna be all like "it was all William's idea!" but I doubt the police would believe them. Even if they did, he was going down anyway, so he hasn't lost anything.

            I think though... That he's a controlling and overprotective husband - but innocent of murder.

            Comment


            • Do you guys think this is important? This is from 1930:



              Just chilling out perusing newspaper articles.

              Comment


              • I also read cases where a jacket was used in an attempt to extinguish flames - but not pertaining to murder scenes, just random news articles.

                I don't think the jacket was used in the manner suggested by the prosecution. I think it was either chucked around her shoulders as the first thing to hand when she went for the door, used to douse out flames, used to wipe blood off of a person or weapon... things like that. It being on Julia seems to make the most sense, because the burning on the skirt doesn't seem significant enough compared to the jacket, the jacket seems to have been much more dramatically burnt...

                I don't think it was worn... I don't think it would be a wise plan. In a murder scheme I don't think he could rely firmly enough on a jacket for total protection. I mean, I feel like it would occur to anybody, that if they want to avoid blood spray, the easiest manner would be to actually throw something over the head of the person you're about to attack... But this was not done... There is a danger in assuming it would "occur to anybody" because maybe it wouldn't, but you see my point.

                I also think, if he's removing a blood-soaked weapon from the house he could also remove bloodstained items of clothing. I think no matter what happens, the smartest choice would be to of course dispose of everything he was wearing when he struck Julia. Everything... Not just take off the jacket and leave the house, when even the smallest stain could lead to your arrest.

                As you know though, I'm not sure anything WAS removed from the house, because a smart premeditated killer would wrap the weapon. He might remove a clean weapon if it's been bent during the commissioning of the crime. But police found NOTHING while searching all the grids etc. - except they only searched the grids on WALLACE'S route. They didn't check anywhere else. So if he did it, somebody ELSE has probably taken the weapon and put it in another location entirely (we know the police were too dense to consider the possibility of more than one person being involved), or it's still in the house.

                If he's kneeling there beside the body, well there's a chance the pooling blood would get upon his trousers anyway, even with a long jacket as it seeps around etc. I think he would have to just dispose of everything.
                Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-08-2020, 06:44 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
                  William placing them as suspects when they have no involvement means he certainly has a death wish. It's sheer dumb luck Parry fudged his call night alibi in that case.

                  If you want to get away with murder you don't tell police that there's about 3 people who could have committed the crime.

                  I believe him about the financial irregularities based on the fact that he said the same of Parry and it turned out he was being honest...

                  The R. J. Qualtrough is a strong connection. He might have picked the name himself to frame Marsden but again it's death wish territory. Apart from that there isn't any actual connection to Marsden. And Parry may well have heard the name through Marsden.

                  I'd be more inclined to believe he knew he was screwed and threw his accomplices to the wolves as a hail Mary to get away with it. He would know they have no alibi and he's F-d anyway, they're gonna be all like "it was all William's idea!" but I doubt the police would believe them. Even if they did, he was going down anyway, so he hasn't lost anything.

                  I think though... That he's a controlling and overprotective husband - but innocent of murder.
                  I really can’t see how Wallace would have had to have had a death wish? Remember he wasn’t accusing them overtly (this is why he said that he didn’t suspect anyone). He was just dropping 2 names into the police’s lap hoping that they mightn’t have had an alibi or that an alibi might have been a bit shaky. Wallace wasn’t relying on the police arresting Parry or Marsden because his plan is unaffected. He was just hoping. It was well worth the minimal effort of staging the ‘robbery’ so that it appeared that the thief/killer had gone straight to the cash box and therefore had inside knowledge. If the police had gone on to eliminate Parry or Marsden (as they did) then this might help explain the random cupboard door being pulled off. The thief goes straight to the locked cupboard as an obvious place where cash might have been hidden but there was none. He steps back and sees the cash box on the shelf? He drops a few coins which at which point in walks Julia. This is a simple, risk-free idea for William.

                  If Wallace had a ‘death wish’ then surely Marsden must have had a far greater one as he uses such an unusual and memorable name and its the name of a client of his?

                  If you want to get away with murder you don't tell police that there's about 3 people who could have committed the crime.
                  Really? It’s a bad idea to drop a couple of potential suspects into the police’s lap? The police were hardly going to confine their search to William’s list of people that a Julia might have let in?

                  The idea of him accusing his accomplice’s is just a non-starter. Even if Wallace had an accomplice (and the suggestion isn’t impossible of course) then Parry is the least likely of all. After his acquittal the idea of Wallace then accusing Parry of Julia’s murder would have been the equivalent of walking up to a hibernating grizzly bear and poking him repeatedly with a stick.
                  Regards

                  Herlock




                  “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                  “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                  “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                  “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                  “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    I really can’t see how Wallace would have had to have had a death wish? Remember he wasn’t accusing them overtly (this is why he said that he didn’t suspect anyone). He was just dropping 2 names into the police’s lap hoping that they mightn’t have had an alibi or that an alibi might have been a bit shaky. Wallace wasn’t relying on the police arresting Parry or Marsden because his plan is unaffected. He was just hoping. It was well worth the minimal effort of staging the ‘robbery’ so that it appeared that the thief/killer had gone straight to the cash box and therefore had inside knowledge. If the police had gone on to eliminate Parry or Marsden (as they did) then this might help explain the random cupboard door being pulled off. The thief goes straight to the locked cupboard as an obvious place where cash might have been hidden but there was none. He steps back and sees the cash box on the shelf? He drops a few coins which at which point in walks Julia. This is a simple, risk-free idea for William.

                    If Wallace had a ‘death wish’ then surely Marsden must have had a far greater one as he uses such an unusual and memorable name and its the name of a client of his?



                    Really? It’s a bad idea to drop a couple of potential suspects into the police’s lap? The police were hardly going to confine their search to William’s list of people that a Julia might have let in?

                    The idea of him accusing his accomplice’s is just a non-starter. Even if Wallace had an accomplice (and the suggestion isn’t impossible of course) then Parry is the least likely of all. After his acquittal the idea of Wallace then accusing Parry of Julia’s murder would have been the equivalent of walking up to a hibernating grizzly bear and poking him repeatedly with a stick.
                    What? He didn't just drop names in the police's lap, he evidently purposefully framed them if he did it, right from the outset with the client name, and made out that only they (or himself) could have done it... How is that risk free exactly? It's the literal exact opposite of risk free, hence death wish. Risk free would be making out like anyone could have done it. There is no way to explain this away at all and no alternate way of viewing that.

                    I don't think Marsden would want that name given if he's taking part in a conspiracy to commit murder with William. I'd think he probably didn't know that part if Gannon was right and that's what happened.

                    William named them because he's involved with them, and any "grizzly bears" are irrelevant because it's overwhelmingly obvious. He's not so lucky that all of these things he did just so happen to point at Parry and Marsden WITHOUT him intending them to. But no sane man on the planet would try to get away with a murder where getting away with it hinges solely on the pot luck that the people you are framing have no alibi (very low odds).

                    Alternatively he didn't do it and legitimately figured they were probably behind it.

                    Step 1 of "how to get away with murder" is to NOT try to voluntarily make it look like you can count on one hand the amount of people who plausibly could have done it.

                    If he was a SANE man he would have grabbed a bunch of random things so it appears the person did not need advanced knowledge of the home or be known to Julia to gain admittance.

                    ---

                    The obvious answer is that he didn't frame Parry and Marsden... The pieces fall so perfectly into place for them to have done it, down to the "sheer luck" of false alibis, because they did do it. Not because William is so unbelievably fortunate.
                    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-08-2020, 01:14 PM.

                    Comment


                    • .

                      What? He didn't just drop names in the police's lap, he evidently purposefully framed them if he did it, right from the outset with the client name, and made out that only they (or himself) could have done it... How is that risk free exactly? It's the literal exact opposite of risk free, hence death wish. Risk free would be making out like anyone could have done it. There is no way to explain this away at all and no alternate way of viewing that.


                      William named them because he's involved with them, and any "grizzly bears" are irrelevant because it's overwhelmingly obvious. He's not so lucky that all of these things he did just so happen to point at Parry and Marsden WITHOUT him intending them to. But no sane man on the planet would try to get away with a murder where getting away with it hinges solely on the pot luck that the people you are framing have no alibi (very low odds).
                      I’m genuinely baffled by this WWH. Where is the risk to Wallace? There’s not a scintilla of risk because his chances of getting away with it didn’t hinge on Parry and Marsden. It hinges on him proving that he didn’t do it. If he killed Julia then.....


                      He knew that the police would look at him as a possible suspect.

                      He knew that if he could convince them ( that he’d genuinely searched for MGE, that his marriage was happy, that he had no blood on him) then they would have to look elsewhere.

                      If he points them to Parry and Marsden and they have no alibi then one of them might have been charged.

                      If he points them to Parry and Marsden and they have alibi’s then the police look elsewhere. Simple - but not at William because they’ve discounted him and are looking elsewhere.

                      Either way Wallace had to convince the police that he was innocent......whoever they focused on next didn’t matter to William as long as they didn’t suspect him.

                      The whole enterprise didn’t ‘hinge’ on Parry and Marsden. Of course they could have had alibis. Wallace just saw an opportunity to point the police in the direction of two men after he’d convinced the police that it wasn’t him. If it worked then all well and good. If not, so what?

                      No risk at all.
                      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 02-08-2020, 04:42 PM.
                      Regards

                      Herlock




                      “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                      “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                      “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                      “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                      “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        I’m genuinely baffled by this WWH. Where is the risk to Wallace? There’s not a scintilla of risk because his chances of getting away with it didn’t hinge on Parry and Marsden. It hinges on him proving that he didn’t do it. If he killed Julia then.....


                        He knew that the police would look at him as a possible suspect.

                        He knew that if he could convince them ( that he’d genuinely searched for MGE, that his marriage was happy, that he had no blood on him) then they would have to look elsewhere.

                        If he points them to Parry and Marsden and they have no alibi then one of them might have been charged.

                        If he points them to Parry and Marsden and they have alibi’s then the police look elsewhere. Simple - but not at William because they’ve discounted him and are looking elsewhere.

                        Either way Wallace had to convince the police that he was innocent......whoever they focused on next didn’t matter to William as long as they didn’t suspect him.

                        No risk at all.
                        You're missing the point: If you say to officers only about 2 other people know where the cash box is, what then do you suppose happens if the police rule those 2 people out (which is very likely since an innocent person isn't going to falsify alibis)?

                        They're gonna be like "okay so Parry, Marsden, and Wallace are the only ones who know where the box is... And Parry and Marsden are out, so that leavessssss ______"... Please explain how that is an intelligent move?

                        One of the biggest reasons people even think he's guilty - even laymen - is because he's one of the only people who know the location of the box. It narrows the suspect pool dramatically. It's the reason it's hard to say that a random chess club member did it, because while they know all the vital details of the trip and William's address, they don't know where the box is, and it looks like a blatantly targeted attack.

                        And then he says Julia would never admit strangers (which I think was HIS house rule rather than hers, by the way). Again constricting the suspect pool even further. He's essentially turning it into a locked room mystery by doing so, which is the last thing a guilty person would want to do.

                        I'm very sure you must see how this could prove problematic if you're actually trying to get away with the crime, as opposed to trying to frame someone else due to a personal vendetta, or something peculiar like trying to create an enduring mystery.

                        If he has any involvement at all, it's clear he named Parry due to knowing for a fact that Parry could not POSSIBLY have an alibi (and knowing that if he didn't name him, he himself would go down for it for sure). Or alternatively that he figured Parry was the obvious suspect and is entirely innocent.

                        Parry's a crook, Marsden's a crook, he names them both and by a completely insane fluke Parry lies and Marsden had flu (the latter of which might be legit).

                        You really have to weigh up the odds... That he set about so expertly framing these two men down to the chess schedule on the noticeboard (which will later harm his defence considerably if they provide an alibi after he admits only about 3 people could know where the box is), and then miraculously the alibis are false or sketchy... Is it actually more likely that's what happened, or more likely that it looks like they did it because they really did?

                        Comment


                        • The problem is that although we can suggest the Wallace planned the murder we can’t know when he decided upon various aspects of that plan. He might have initially intended to kill Julia and then ransack a few drawers to make it simply to have looked like a robbery gone wrong. He might have then, possibly even on the Monday or during the day on Tuesday, decided on a way of pointing a finger.

                          Wallace would already have had a level of confidence that he’d be able to convince the police that he wasn’t involved - the phone call, his good character, the lack of blood on him, the timing, the apparent lack of motive. And of course we know that many killers feel themselves cleverer than everyone else including the police.

                          So Wallace’s thinking (and we can’t impose our own thinking on what his might have been) might have been - there’s no way the police will think I’m guilty because I’ve planned too well. I can point the police at Parry (or Marsden) and of he hasn’t got an alibi then he’s in trouble. Even if he has got an alibi the police will think that someone somehow tricked there way past Julia to get inside and then kill her. If I pull off the door of the cupboard then the police might think that this was a thief looking in the obvious place first, a locked cupboard, then looking up he stands on a chair and emptied the box.

                          There are always questions and doubts of course but no crime is perfect.

                          You're missing the point: If you say to officers only about 2 other people know where the cash box is, what then do you suppose happens if the police rule those 2 people out
                          Maybe the police might have suspected that Parry might have told one of his dodgy mates about it?

                          ~

                          What certainly is strange though is that the alleged thieves made no search for cash or valuables. Even today police would look at the crime scene and say that this was no robbery gone wrong.
                          Regards

                          Herlock




                          “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                          “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                          “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                          “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                          “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                            The problem is that although we can suggest the Wallace planned the murder we can’t know when he decided upon various aspects of that plan. He might have initially intended to kill Julia and then ransack a few drawers to make it simply to have looked like a robbery gone wrong. He might have then, possibly even on the Monday or during the day on Tuesday, decided on a way of pointing a finger.

                            Wallace would already have had a level of confidence that he’d be able to convince the police that he wasn’t involved - the phone call, his good character, the lack of blood on him, the timing, the apparent lack of motive. And of course we know that many killers feel themselves cleverer than everyone else including the police.

                            So Wallace’s thinking (and we can’t impose our own thinking on what his might have been) might have been - there’s no way the police will think I’m guilty because I’ve planned too well. I can point the police at Parry (or Marsden) and of he hasn’t got an alibi then he’s in trouble. Even if he has got an alibi the police will think that someone somehow tricked there way past Julia to get inside and then kill her. If I pull off the door of the cupboard then the police might think that this was a thief looking in the obvious place first, a locked cupboard, then looking up he stands on a chair and emptied the box.

                            There are always questions and doubts of course but no crime is perfect.



                            Maybe the police might have suspected that Parry might have told one of his dodgy mates about it?

                            ~

                            What certainly is strange though is that the alleged thieves made no search for cash or valuables. Even today police would look at the crime scene and say that this was no robbery gone wrong.
                            It's not really the probable explanation... Timing didn't even matter to him for when he left the house evidently or Alan the alibi would've been mentioned... He would of course know that they would have an alibi (weak at least, rather than a proven outright lie) if they didn't do anything... He didn't do the locked cupboard thing thinking it'll look like the box was taken naturally, it's not reasonable to suggest. The box is inconspicuous, it could contain anything really. He could have swiped jewelry and random valuables just as easily.

                            It looks like a staged robbery.

                            Except some oddities are explained by other break ins that happened recently. For example off the bat we know we can't use the lack of forced entry as a point to prove that. Apparently the break-in at 19 Wolverton Street was shockingly similar.

                            Moreso though, the scene of the crime might look like that in a robbery that is very quickly aborted. For example if Julia has been hit very soon into it. Of course then the robbery will end right there and then as soon as everyone becomes aware of what's happened, and I wouldn't expect a thorough search for valuables. If anything I'd expect them to be looking for a way to get RID of the stuff they'd taken. I don't believe they would keep ANYTHING they had stolen. Even the cash from the box, if it left the scene I should expect they burned it (as they did in previous robberies), or drop it down grids, stuff like that...

                            Comment


                            • I can show you a break in (not by this gang) from that era, where the shop guy was lured into the back room by someone pretending they wanted to see a mitre saw he had advertised for sale. Once in the back, the criminal took the saw or something specific that he wanted (I forget) and took off without an extensive search. I think the guy was killed.

                              There are quite a lot of cases where a victim isn't killed right there and then, just nearly killed, so they remain in hospital before dying. A weird caveat since they can testify, but then once dead it becomes a murder charge.

                              It's no wonder people back then would often practice overkill.

                              Comment


                              • it's not reasonable to suggest. The box is inconspicuous, it could contain anything really. He could have swiped jewelry and random valuables just as easily.
                                In a house where the alleged thieves suspected that cash might exist (because of William’s job) a locked cupboard is an obvious place to have looked first. It’s would have been quite natural for the police to have felt it possible that burglars might not have seen the cash box straight away. The main area of doubt of course is that the cash box was replaced but the police might have conjectured that he’d stood on the chair to reach the shelf and whilst on the chair he’d opened the box, grabbed the notes and in the process picked up some coins which had slipped through his fingers. So he has the money in one hand and the box in the other. He puts the box back on the shelf so that he can use his free hand to lean on the mantle piece as he steps from the chair.

                                It looks like a staged robbery
                                Exactly. Because it was one.
                                Regards

                                Herlock




                                “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                                “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                                “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                                “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                                “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X